Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Intelligent designís long march to nowhere
Science & Theology News ^ | 05 December 2005 | Karl Giberson

Posted on 12/05/2005 4:06:56 AM PST by PatrickHenry

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 301-350351-400401-450 ... 851-875 next last
To: VadeRetro
" He's almost the whole show. The issue was fuzzy when he started but he's held on about 10 years too long."

Ok. I knew he was a big opponent of dinosaur-bird evolution, though I was not sure if this was one of his big bones of contention, so to speak. :)

I do know that even if Sinosauropteryx is found not to have feathers, there have been a number of other species that do have them.
351 posted on 12/05/2005 3:48:47 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 346 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
From my post 336:"...and the Templeton Foundation cut off discussion before a proposal was even on the table."

No wonder they "never came in."

Yeah, the BS detector headed them off at the pass and the VP provided a PC disclaimer to CYA.

Wll, that's what I think happened.

352 posted on 12/05/2005 3:49:18 PM PST by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 346 | View Replies]

To: pby
"I know...abiogenesis is not the same as evolution (However, a link provided on this thread to Scientific American's website calls abiogenesis chemical evolution...so don't we just go from one kind of evolution that allegedly explains the origin of life and another that allegedly explains speciation on a grand scale...Are not biological and chemical evolution linked?)"

No.

" The point was that museums pass of abiogenesis speculation as scientific theory relating to the origin of all life."

It is.

"I understand the evidence provided for human evolution from a common primate ancestor...Do we have actual evidence that it is the clean line of the monkey walking into an ape walking into a human that is displayed? (no.)"

Define *clean line*.
353 posted on 12/05/2005 3:50:42 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 347 | View Replies]

To: pby

What wishful thinking looks like.

354 posted on 12/05/2005 3:52:29 PM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 350 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
"Perhaps you ought to inform the authors of biology textbooks who bring abiogenesis into discussions of evolution that they are out of bounds."

If they call one abiogenesis and the other evolution there is no problem.

" On what basis do paleontologists assert they are capable of constructing good evolutionary histories? "

The vast fossil record and their ability to reason.

"Physics enjoys present phenomena to observe and record. Anyone is free to assert purely natural causes to all phenomena. Will billions of years of billions of combinations of matter a virgin birth here and there should hardly be scientifically impossible, let alone improbable."

I'll try to decipher this jumble. A virgin birth here and there is outside of scientific explanation.
355 posted on 12/05/2005 3:54:44 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 349 | View Replies]

To: pby

I just did a Scholar Google search on "Sinosauroptyrex" (your spelling). I could not find any papers published on the critter. Is it possible this is a misspelling of the name? Honestly, before today's thread I do not remember coming across this critter before.


356 posted on 12/05/2005 3:55:38 PM PST by Junior (From now on, I'll stick to science, and leave the hunting alien mutants to the experts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 347 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
I do know that even if Sinosauropteryx is found not to have feathers, there have been a number of other species that do have them.

Right. And the problem with Feduccia's premise is that there shouldn't be any feathered dinosaurs at all, unless all the dinos from day one had them. Thus it's absurd to harp on the most ambiguous, and perhaps even the most primitively scale-like fossil feathers when we have so many unambiguous fossil dinosaur feathers that wreck his case.

357 posted on 12/05/2005 3:55:53 PM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 351 | View Replies]

To: pby
"Yes...new study out in October of this year with some heavyweights.

Shows that this fossil never had feathers or protofeathers (just wishful thinking by many not-so scientific evolutionists).

There was a press conference and there were several articles written and posted on the internet."

Any citations?

BTW, there are still a number of unambiguous feathered dinosaurs even if Sinosauropteryx is found not to have them.
358 posted on 12/05/2005 3:56:03 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 350 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Come on Vade...What I referred to is right there.

"From time to time the Foundation will support well-designed projects or research that some others may label as "intelligent design" ..."

"...some advocates of the ID position have received grants from the Foundation."

In the portion of the link that you did not post...I am pretty sure that it refers to the Foundation supporting the ID debate.

No lies...just what it says.

If only you were as critical towards the proponents of the evolutionary theory..."science" may get away with less wishful thinking.

359 posted on 12/05/2005 3:57:59 PM PST by pby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 344 | View Replies]

To: Junior

The composition of the earth's primitive environment is often discussed in relation to how it might give rise to life. If one is going to insist upon unintelligent causes for such things, it only stands to reason that the whole progression from non-life to life falls within the purview of science. Why is this question suddenly considered beyond scientific consideration? Don't you think it is a tad disingenous to imply that science does not talk about abiogensis, or that it has "nothing to do with evolution?" I would consider it a remarkable evolution for substances to change from non-living to living, no matter what the cause.


360 posted on 12/05/2005 3:58:39 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 337 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew

But, you see, I wasn't talking about abiogenesis, nor was the posts to which I was referring. You brought that into the discussion later. I refuse to be sidetracked.


361 posted on 12/05/2005 4:02:28 PM PST by Junior (From now on, I'll stick to science, and leave the hunting alien mutants to the experts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 360 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
"Why is this question suddenly considered beyond scientific consideration?"

It isn't. It's just outside of the theory of evolution.

"Don't you think it is a tad disingenous to imply that science does not talk about abiogensis, or that it has "nothing to do with evolution?"

Abiogenesis is a part of science, but it is not nor has it ever been part of the ToE.
362 posted on 12/05/2005 4:03:57 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 360 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
Is abiogenesis chemical evolution as Scientific American states?

"It is."

Where is the evidence that a cell climbed out of a primordial ooze some million/billion years ago?

"Define *clean line*."

Clean line is defined in the museum displays as they show a monkey walking into an ape walking into a human (with time-line)...A clean, straight line succession. Is there evidence for this or just a common ancestor between these?

363 posted on 12/05/2005 4:06:00 PM PST by pby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 353 | View Replies]

To: pby
No lies...just what it says.

Everybody can read. How many times do we have to catch you?

364 posted on 12/05/2005 4:06:07 PM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 359 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
A virgin birth here and there is outside of scientific explanation.

Not if science considers the current universe to be the result of countless potential combinations of matter forming by way of unguided, unintelligent, forces. It is the naturalistic viewpoint of all viewpoints that condones virtually any potential combination of matter, or random occurence, and so a virgin birth, water into wine, etc. are viable possibilities scientifically speaking. They must be, because matter is capable of behaving any way imaginable. It operates sans design and sans intelligence. Hence we may very well see a virgin birth simply by virtue of mutation and natural selection. Again, with virutally any scenario possible (since probabilities are scientifically non-explanatory), a virgin birth is a simple matter. Sure, it doesn't happen very often, and no one has witnessed it personally of late, but they didn't see the first life forms either.

365 posted on 12/05/2005 4:06:28 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 355 | View Replies]

To: pby
See also.
366 posted on 12/05/2005 4:09:33 PM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 359 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
What looks like feathers to you in a photograph, via actual on-site scientific testing and study, turns out to be nothing related to feathers.

You can cry "crackpot" and "but it looks like feathers" all you want...but that won't change the actual study results.

I'm sorry...I know it hurts to be defrauded in such a way, again.

367 posted on 12/05/2005 4:10:46 PM PST by pby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 354 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; CarolinaGuitarman
I have not been caught in a lie now...and you have never caught me in a lie previously.

This is just your common tactic...slander.

Everyone can see the link for themselves and read the words "support" and "funding" as it relates to ID and the ID debate.

They can also read Templeton's quotes from the Foundation website referring to "strong hints" for design and purpose.

Maybe some honest Darwin Central devotee will step in and settle this between us?

368 posted on 12/05/2005 4:17:30 PM PST by pby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 364 | View Replies]

To: pby
"Is abiogenesis chemical evolution as Scientific American states?"

It's using evolution in the vernacular. The ToE has nothing to do or say about abiogenesis.

" Where is the evidence that a cell climbed out of a primordial ooze some million/billion years ago?"

Our DNA. And nobody says a cell *climbed out* of the ooze.

"Clean line is defined in the museum displays as they show a monkey walking into an ape walking into a human (with time-line)...A clean, straight line succession. Is there evidence for this or just a common ancestor between these?"

That's a simplification of a more complicated process. They obviously had to leave out the dozens of intermediary fossils or else the display would be too confusing. The general picture though is correct.
369 posted on 12/05/2005 4:17:46 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 363 | View Replies]

To: pby

Why was I pinged on the Templeton Foundation quotes? I have never mentioned them. You have the wrong guy.


370 posted on 12/05/2005 4:19:36 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 368 | View Replies]

To: pby

" You can cry "crackpot" and "but it looks like feathers" all you want...but that won't change the actual study results."

What study finds? Links please.


371 posted on 12/05/2005 4:20:40 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 367 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
October issue of the Journal of Morphology.

The study results can also be found at the UNC website along with a transcript of the related press conference.

I provided the info. in a previous thread some time ago.

The Discovery website and several other websites had articles about it recently as well.

372 posted on 12/05/2005 4:24:58 PM PST by pby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 358 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
"Not if science considers the current universe to be the result of countless potential combinations of matter forming by way of unguided, unintelligent, forces."

How does this view make the idea of Virgin Births any more subject to scientific examination?

"It is the naturalistic viewpoint of all viewpoints that condones virtually any potential combination of matter, or random occurence, and so a virgin birth, water into wine, etc. are viable possibilities scientifically speaking."

No, methodological naturalism does not allow any potential combination of matter. It is understood that the universe works by regular, law-like processes. Virgin births, water into wine, are all outside of scientific examination. They cannot be tested in any way.

"They must be, because matter is capable of behaving any way imaginable."

Nope, completely wrong.

"Hence we may very well see a virgin birth simply by virtue of mutation and natural selection"

Now your just making things up to make us laugh. lol

Your ideas just keep getting nuttier and nuttier.
373 posted on 12/05/2005 4:25:42 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 365 | View Replies]

To: pby
I'm sorry...I know it hurts to be defrauded in such a way, again.

Oh, my! Another empty victory dance. Maybe Running Wolf will come by and give you a cyber high-five for nothing; he's easy.

Here's your problem. Feduccia is hammering, hammering, hammering on Sinosauropteryx. The feathers look like scales (version one) or some kind of vague integuments (version two). So what? Here's the mainstream science progression for dinos to birds. (A cladogram.)

From here.

Sinosauropteryx is allowed to have primitive-looking proto-feathers. It's just insulation. The feathers get truer as you go out the branch. That's just what happens in the fossil record.

Feduccia is just pounding the table. That's why the museums are ignoring him. EVERYBODY's ignoring him.

374 posted on 12/05/2005 4:25:52 PM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 367 | View Replies]

To: pby
Templeton does not fund ID research and is now unlikely to do so. You have been given all the support for this anyone who can read would ever require.

They looked at it and found it lacking in rigor and intellectual seriousness. Now stop brazening your dishonesty.

375 posted on 12/05/2005 4:28:36 PM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 368 | View Replies]

To: Junior
My spelling could be wrong...But I didn't think so.

Check out the October Issue of The Journal of Morphology or UNC's website (Dr. Alan Feduccia).

376 posted on 12/05/2005 4:28:40 PM PST by pby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 356 | View Replies]

To: pby
Ah, it WAS Feduccia. He IS a crackpot. His is NOT the consensus opinion, not even close. You'll have to do better than this.
377 posted on 12/05/2005 4:29:40 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 372 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
VadeRetro called me a liar...I thought a third party could settle the score.

You seem reasonable.

378 posted on 12/05/2005 4:31:20 PM PST by pby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 370 | View Replies]

To: pby
VadeRetro called me a liar...

You could have originally been mistaken in your reading. However, an honest person would have owned up at once when presented with the evidence.

379 posted on 12/05/2005 4:32:39 PM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 378 | View Replies]

To: pby
“From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don’t come out very well in our world of scientific review.”
Charles L. Harper, Jr., senior Vice President of the John Templeton Fund
380 posted on 12/05/2005 4:34:40 PM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 378 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Read the study results...They are not related to feathers in anyway...primitive or otherwise.

His team of scientists also provided a few other evidence-based reasons for their objection to the dino-bird theory (specifically, sinosauroptyrex).

381 posted on 12/05/2005 4:35:36 PM PST by pby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 374 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
John Templeton Fund

John Templeton Foundation.

382 posted on 12/05/2005 4:37:26 PM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 380 | View Replies]

Somewhat less dishonest than Gould and Dawkins, Darwin was more vocal in admitting the problems gradualism faced in the wake of punctuated equilibria. All of them, and the general community of evolutionists at large, are on their face simply duplicitous. Militant evolutionists do believe in limitless speciation and expect us to swallow broad abiogenesis, but dare not trumpet their duplicity from the wires lest their opponent gain greater public support. These are the militant evolutionists who choose to ignore the compelling nature of the apparent mechanical designs underpinning the delicate balance of life.


383 posted on 12/05/2005 4:40:25 PM PST by dotnetfellow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 315 | View Replies]

To: pby
Read the study results...They are not related to feathers in anyway...primitive or otherwise.

Feduccia is in denial. What's your excuse? And when do you address the points in the post to which you reply?

384 posted on 12/05/2005 4:40:39 PM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 381 | View Replies]

To: dotnetfellow; Stultis
Is there some reason you didn't want Stultis to see your reply to his post?

What are you afraid of?

385 posted on 12/05/2005 4:42:49 PM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 383 | View Replies]

To: dotnetfellow
"Somewhat less dishonest than Gould and Dawkins, Darwin was more vocal in admitting the problems gradualism faced in the wake of punctuated equilibria. All of them, and the general community of evolutionists at large, are on their face simply duplicitous. Militant evolutionists do believe in limitless speciation and expect us to swallow broad abiogenesis, but dare not trumpet their duplicity from the wires lest their opponent gain greater public support. These are the militant evolutionists who choose to ignore the compelling nature of the apparent mechanical designs underpinning the delicate balance of life."

Other than laughable accusations, do you have anything to support this tripe?
386 posted on 12/05/2005 4:45:21 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 383 | View Replies]

To: dotnetfellow
the apparent mechanical designs underpinning the delicate balance of life.

Such as? Anyway, since you won't answer that, I think we should come to some agreement about the use of "militant." Being conservative here in CT, I'm sick of the adjectives, "militant," "fervent," "rabid," "arch," etc. Your hyperbole makes you sound, well, silly.
387 posted on 12/05/2005 4:48:12 PM PST by whattajoke (I'm back... kinda.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 383 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
Da Vinci had extensive training for the time.

Yes, but it seems to have been primarily in the arts and not the scientific training to which I referred.

388 posted on 12/05/2005 4:49:11 PM PST by catpuppy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: Snowbelt Man
if evolution is true and homosexuality is genetic - why are there still homosexuals?

So you believe that homosexuality is genetic? Or are you erroneously assuming that everyone who accepts that the theory of evolution is valid science also believes that homosexuality is genetic? Regardless your question demonstrates that you are fundamentally ignorant of both the concept of recessive genes and phenotypes (and that's just on the most elementary level).

when it comes to science, i'm one of those ignoramuses

You certainly got that right.

who believes that God created man in His own image and homosexuality is a choice that people make.

Why in the hell did you think that homosexuality was somehow relevant to this discussion?
389 posted on 12/05/2005 4:50:35 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: pby
I just went out to the UNC website and did a search. No such papers appeared. Perhaps you would be so kind as to provide a link.
390 posted on 12/05/2005 4:52:53 PM PST by Junior (From now on, I'll stick to science, and leave the hunting alien mutants to the experts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 372 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Read my previous post to PatrickHenry on this thread (between post 1 and 200) in which I stated that I knew that Giberson and the Templeton Foundation did not adhere to ID.

You responded to the other posts in which I was making the point that those at Darwin Central would not agree with Templeton and Giberson as a whole relative to their practice of "science" and their complete attitude toward ID and IDers.

That is not a lie.

Would you, or others, agree with Templeton when he states that there is "strong hints" for purpose and design?

Will you , and/or Darwin Central, advocate spending "scientific dollars" researching heaven, prayer, religion, love and etc.?

Would you, and/or Darwin Central fund or support ID, IDers and/or the ID debate in any manner?

No lie...It is clear from PatrickHenry's link that Templeton does support and will fund ID, IDers and/or the ID debate as they deem appropriate.

It is also clear from the link that they do not support the ID movement and the wedge political/lobbying/legal activities that are associated with ID (I also posted that previously on this thread).

Get all the information before you make incorrect hasty generalizations.

(A Darwin Central apology card would be nice though.)

391 posted on 12/05/2005 4:54:29 PM PST by pby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 379 | View Replies]

To: BelegStrongbow
Do we still disagree on any point?

Not that I know of.

So9

392 posted on 12/05/2005 4:56:10 PM PST by Servant of the 9 (Trust Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 279 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
20 points to any old-timers who get that one.

In my day we dealt purely with the binary values going right into the CPU registers.

(Sadly, "my day" was last Saturday)
393 posted on 12/05/2005 4:57:30 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
The composition of the earth's primitive environment is often discussed in relation to how it might give rise to life. If one is going to insist upon unintelligent causes for such things, it only stands to reason that the whole progression from non-life to life falls within the purview of science. Why is this question suddenly considered beyond scientific consideration?

Hey Fester! Let me in on this abiogenesis thing.

You're talking about two concepts: Evolution and Abiogenesis. Now, I know this point has been repeatedly hashed and rehashed, but I'll do it again...because it is an important point, the understanding of which is essential to a better understanding of the Theory of Evolution.

Evolution Theory doesn't do abiogenesis. Some scientists do do abiogenesis research, but it's not the focus of research in Evolutionary Theory.

There are overwhelming numbers of scientists who do research directly related to Evolution Theory. Those who research abiogenesis do exist, but are quite fewer in numbers.

The reason for the apparent dichotomy lies in the fact that they are two distinctly different topics.

394 posted on 12/05/2005 5:00:14 PM PST by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 360 | View Replies]

To: pby
Read my previous post to PatrickHenry on this thread (between post 1 and 200) in which I stated that I knew that Giberson and the Templeton Foundation did not adhere to ID.

They also don't fund it. You said they did. They were interested once and called for papers. None came. Now they aren't much interested, as their guidelines for submissions make crystal clear.

I'll ignore the rest of your brazen nonsense. Grow some integrity.

395 posted on 12/05/2005 5:04:13 PM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 391 | View Replies]

To: Junior
I just found it again at the UNC website (search, news archives):

http://www.unc.edu/news/archives/oct05/feducci100705.htm

The study was also posted online on October 10, 2005 at the Journal of Morphology website.

396 posted on 12/05/2005 5:04:26 PM PST by pby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 390 | View Replies]

To: Rudder
Evolution Theory doesn't do abiogenesis. Some scientists do do abiogenesis research, but it's not the focus of research in Evolutionary Theory.

There is a point at which it is so thoroughly and repeatedly explained to a creationist exactly why life origins are irrelevant to the theory of evolution that the creationist can safely be called a liar when they continue to act as though life origins is part of the theory. Fester passed that point long ago.
397 posted on 12/05/2005 5:05:02 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 394 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
It is understood that the universe works by regular, law-like processes.

Sure. And within those processes any combination of matter is possible. It can combine to bring life out of non-life. It can combine in such a manner as to produce evolution in any sense. It is a small stretch to consider that molecules can combine under the same rules to form life apart from sexual intercourse, or wine apart from any process of fermentation as we know it.

If you are so sure that regular, law-like processes are involved with the universe, then it should also be no big stretch to infer intelligent design, because of all things, intelligent desing results in processes that are orderly and law-like.

How do you explain the law-like nature of the universe apart from either intelligence or design?

398 posted on 12/05/2005 5:07:38 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 373 | View Replies]

brazen placemarker


399 posted on 12/05/2005 5:09:12 PM PST by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 395 | View Replies]

To: pby

Thanks. Interesting press release. I can't wait for his research paper to be published. I'd like to see the takes his peers will ... take.


400 posted on 12/05/2005 5:11:48 PM PST by Junior (From now on, I'll stick to science, and leave the hunting alien mutants to the experts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 396 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 301-350351-400401-450 ... 851-875 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson